The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5653 of 2024 ---------- 1. Mrityunjay Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Late Siya Ram Sharma, resident of 14, Pragati Vihar, Bye Pass Road, Dibadih, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. Kanak, aged about 52 years, wife of Uday Kumar Jwala, resident of Vikas Nagar, Road No. 8A, Hatia, Latma Road, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. 3. Moti Lal Hembrom, aged about 48 years, son of Chunda Hembrom, resident of Village Kashidih, P.O. Chapuadih, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih. 4. Sunil Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Uday Kant Jha, resident of Flat No. 305, Jai Shri Complex, Kavi Raman Path, Nageshwar Colony, P.O. Patna, P.S. Patna, District Patna. 5. Abhishek Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Mahendra Prasad, resident of House No.51, Kailash Nagar, Chhota Govindpur, Bara Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District East Singhbhum. 6. Kamal Kishor Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Krishna Kumar Singh, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Devnagar, Sakchi, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 7. Santosh Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Late Shambhu Nath Singh, resident of Flat No. 403, Samrajya Apartment, New A.G. Cooperative Colony, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
Legal Reasoning
8. Sachidanand Kumar Verma, aged about 56 years, son of Mundrika Prasad, resident of flat No. 205/C, Sri Sai Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, Bariyatu, P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi. 9. Haroon Rashid, aged about 45 years, son of Md. Neyaz Ahmad, resident of Imli Tola, Central Street, Ghosh Compound, G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 10. Renu Kumari, aged about 49 years, wife of Vijay Kumar, resident of JT/93-D, Vikash Nagar Road, Jara Tola, Opposite Ramgarh Railway Station, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. 11. Kumar Narendra Narayan, aged about 48 years, son of Upendra Narayan Sharma, resident of Dutika Savitri Hospital, B.I.D. Lohardaga, Ward No. 21, Ρ.Ο. Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 12. Rajshree Lalita Baxla, aged about 52 years, daughter of William Baxla, resident of Anandpur, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 13. Kumar Devesh Dwivedee, aged about 50 years, son of Sarvadeo Dwivedee, resident of 86, Village Danadih, Bazar Tanr, Gomeadih, P.O. Gomeadih, P.S.Gomeadih, District Ranchi. 14. Chhanda Bhattacharjee, aged about 50 years, daughter of Ram Dulal Bhattacharjee, resident of Qtr.No. DT1647, H.E.C. Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 15. Dangur Korah, aged about 48 years, son of Kaira Korah, resident of Sarbil, P.O. Tunia, P.S. Tunia, District West Singhbhum. 16. Madhushri Mishra, aged about 47 years, daughter of Nand Kishor Mishra, resident of Jyoti Sangh, S.S. High School, Gumla, P.O. Gumla, P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. ……… Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Finance Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary / Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department,Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Member, Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Engineering Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ………. Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner s: For the Resp. : ----------- Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, Advocate Ms. Soumya Rai, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV ---------- 03/ 21.10.2024 Petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for promotion from the post of basic grade of Jharkhand Administrative Services (Pay Matrix Level-9) to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer and it equivalent post (Pay Matrix Level-11), as they have completed the Kalawadhi prescribed for such promotion as per government resolution dated 04.04.2014, published in Gazette Notification on 12.05.2014
Decision
(Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) and the vacancies are also available. 2. At the very outset, it is submitted by Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in a similar case this Court vide order dated 13.01.2022 passed in W.P.(S). No. 1390 of 2021 and other analogous cases, has already quashed and set aside order contained in Memo No. 6752, dated 24.12.2020, issued by the Principal Secretary, 2 Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the respondents have imposed a blanket stay on promotion to its employees. He further submits that the petitioners have already completed the requisites years of service for promotion to the next level/ grade but with ulterior motive, the cases of present petitioners have not been considered neither they have been granted the benefits of MACP and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners for promotion. 3. On the other hand counter-affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondents and as such, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Heard the parties at length. 5. Admittedly, promotion is not a right of an employee but there is every right for consideration of his/her case for promotion. 6. It appears from the records that the petitioners are in service since 2013 and till date they have not been granted any promotion and even their cases for grant of benefits under MACP has not been considered though they fulfill the eligibility criteria for getting the promotion/MACP. Further, from perusal of resolution dated 04.04.2014, it appears that employees having five years or more services in level-9 may be considered for promotion to level-11. In the instant case though petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service but their cases for promotion has not been taken up by the respondent-authorities which smacks of malafide. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case I hereby direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners for promotion to the next higher grade taking into account the fact that they have already completed requisites years of service and claimed to be eligible in all respect for promotion, in accordance with law, particularly, in view of the observations and directions made by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1390 of 2021 and other analogous cases vide order dated 13.01.2022 as also taking into consideration resolution dated 04.04.2014 issued by the Department of 3 Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 8. Let the entire exercise of promotion be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. RC/Kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4